-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Dallas PO enters wrong apartment, kills occupant
- Thread starter Palladin
- Start date
How the hell did Trayvon Martin's mother and her team get time at the mic!?
ETA: Oh, of course she is running for political office; in FLA.
Sybrina Fulton for Miami-Dade County
ETA: Oh, of course she is running for political office; in FLA.
Sybrina Fulton for Miami-Dade County
Last edited:
KBCraig
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 1,732
- Likes
- 1,206
Maxine and Yolanda are going to have a real good time with that tart in the joint!
Palladin
NES Member
yup
but think about this as well...we had teachers, on the other thread, sentenced to 20+ years for sex with a 17yo.
it'll be interesting
going to prison, as a female cop, at 31. in 5yrs she'll look like she's 60
Last edited:
"When you aimed and pulled the trigger at Mr. Jean, shooting him in center mass exactly where you are trained, you intended to kill Mr. Jean," Hermus said.
"I did," Guyger said.
If she intended to kill him she deserves a murder conviction.
Smart people are trained to stop the threat - not to kill necessarily.
Of course this guy eating vanilla ice cream out of a bowl in his living room was not much of a threat in the first place.
She deserves prison.
I am just shocked that the jury actually found her guilty of murder.
"I did," Guyger said.
If she intended to kill him she deserves a murder conviction.
Smart people are trained to stop the threat - not to kill necessarily.
Of course this guy eating vanilla ice cream out of a bowl in his living room was not much of a threat in the first place.
She deserves prison.
I am just shocked that the jury actually found her guilty of murder.
Good verdict! Now a long sentence is what we can hope for.
Bull Shite: DA trick question, All cop's in the are USA trained to kill, 2 center mass 1 to the electrical grid. This was not murder, but a tragedy for all, based on what allegedly took place
I was always under the impression that if your testifying at your own trial your defense team is basically tossing up a Hail Mary.
Disagree.
A tsunami, that’s a tragedy. Out-of-the-blue cancer, that’s a tragedy. This was criminally fatal inattention to detail, combined with a conditioned police response that didn’t allow this convict to believe she could possibly be wrong, and that she should use lethal force without thinking.
“I wish I were dead.” Evidently not, Convict Guyger. Or you’d have made that happen by now. Cops who kill innocent citizens deserve nothing other than the maximum possible sentence.
Turns out I’m not way off. She still has the ability to show by a preponderance of evidence that she killed him in a sudden passion arising from an adequate cause, which would make it a second degree felony with a 2-20 year punishment. If not, it’s 5-99. However the “sudden passion arising from an adequate cause” would be like walking in on her husband banging someone else. Not sure it applies here.
Prosecution has put on their witnesses and tomorrow the defense will put on theirs. Then the jury will determine her sentence.
Saw this in the CNN article. Huge upset there was a guilty verdict with these investigators stacking the deck.
Amber Guyger trial verdict: Ex-police officer found guilty of murder - CNN
Amber Guyger trial verdict: Ex-police officer found guilty of murder - CNN
Certainly NOT all cops. We were taught to "stop the threat". End result may be the same but saying that "I shot to kill" (stated as an affirmative answer to that question in her trial) has a different impact on judge/jury.
Also, it was stated somewhere and I agree . . . she was wearing her bat belt with all the tools that she should have been taught to use. Since nobody said that she saw the "intruder" with a gun/knife, she should/could have used OC or her Taser instead. In which case the damages would have been slight and a man would still be alive.
AHM
NES Member
How about a total stranger eating ice cream?
Yes, the lead police investigator recommended she not be charged and testified in her defense. Had the prosecutor been like most, she’d have never even been charged. This is exactly why most cops aren’t. Because the police who investigate their comrades almost always conclude they were justified, and prosecutors go along with it. Thank god in this case, the prosecutor rejected his biased opinion.
Also thank goodness the judge in this case, would not let any “expert” witness give non expert opinions that her actions were justified.
I only saw snippets from the trial when the prosecution presented their case. I saw most of the trial when the defense presented theirs. And it was actually that, which caused me to change my mind and believe it wasn’t just a lesser charge, but murder. There were several things they put forth that I think hurt their case. But that’s probably because they didn’t have much of a case to begin with.
Had she been in the correct apartment and had he actually been an intruder, while I doubt she’d have been charged, and if she had I doubt she’d be convicted, there would STILL have been a case to made that deadly force would not have been justified. Nothing the defense presented made me believe an ordinary person would think that he was attacking her. The defense actually put forth the idea he was ducking when she shot him. That doesn’t sound like someone trying to kill her to me!
I’d feel bad, being that if she wasn’t a cop, there’s virtually no chance she’d have shot him. As numerous cops testified (or tried to testify to), she was just following police training and they believed it was a legal shooting. It’s police culture that led to this murder.
But I can’t feel bad for her, considering all the other things about her. Maybe it was part of the defense plan. Maybe she was told not to, fearing it would make it look worse. But when she testified it was all a poor me act. How she’d never wish anyone else be in her situation. What about someone else being in his situation? Nope!
And furthermore she never even tried to help him after she shot him. She had a trama kit with items specifically designed to stop bleeding from gunshot wounds. And she did nothing. She did mention several times on the 911 call how SHE was going to lose her job. Even then it was all about her. Nothing about him.
And that fits with the fact she was totally fine with having an affair with a married man. Didn’t care about his wife. Nope. All about her.
So apart from being a murderer, she seems like a genuinely awful person.
But I can’t feel bad for her, considering all the other things about her. Maybe it was part of the defense plan. Maybe she was told not to, fearing it would make it look worse. But when she testified it was all a poor me act. How she’d never wish anyone else be in her situation. What about someone else being in his situation? Nope!
And furthermore she never even tried to help him after she shot him. She had a trama kit with items specifically designed to stop bleeding from gunshot wounds. And she did nothing. She did mention several times on the 911 call how SHE was going to lose her job. Even then it was all about her. Nothing about him.
And that fits with the fact she was totally fine with having an affair with a married man. Didn’t care about his wife. Nope. All about her.
So apart from being a murderer, she seems like a genuinely awful person.
AHM
NES Member
Quoted for Teh Relevance.
It sets my hair on fire that nowadays police are simultaneously expected to
act like PhD-level mediators when responding to everything
from public drinking to a domestic dispute,
yet trained to hair trigger twitchiness for traffic stops, etc.
Diametrically-opposed behaviors drilled in to them,
and if they choose in haste the wrong response to an incidence,
somebody has an unjustifiably bad day...
KBCraig
NES Member
There are only two sentences available: life, or 5-99 years.
She'll get 5-99, just like a non-cop would.
KBCraig
NES Member
Under the Texas statute, intending to kill him is irrelevant. She intended to shoot him, and did. When he died, that made it murder.
If she had intended to fire a warning shot and he jumped in front of it and was unintentionally hit, and died, that would be manslaughter in Texas.
Literally the only evidence supporting self defense they had was her word. That’s it. It was not disputed that she intentionally shot and killed him. And that’s what murder is. The only thing they could argue is that she was justified to shoot and kill him. When the facts showed the guy was innocently in his own apartment and she was the intruder, you don’t have much of a case.
